Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Ten years after the first ban began, high cap magazines were still readily available. Plus, a magazine is nothing more than a metal box, spring and follower - any half decent machine shop operator could make them. And like any other "ban" it will do nothing to solve the problem at hand.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Like QE2, QE3, QE 'infinity' aren't repeating the same futile action?
Doing the same thing over and over in hopes of getting a different result was Einstein's definition of insanity.
This administration has a social agenda, not a 'rational' plan of action. Once you grasp that, almost all Obama's actions and inactions make sense.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws"

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

the "ban" was perhaps not designed to prevent "crime", but to lower the capacity of shooters to generate a high body count in a short time span......perhaps kill only 15, 16 instead of 20 little kids at a sitting.....a small saving perhaps, but a big deal if it is you or yours.: dead v alive!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

In areas ... under the jurisdiction of the United States ... as provided at Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2, Congress may declare anything it contrives. Under the original, ordinary jurisdictions of the States, however, neither Congress nor the State is permitted to abridge a State citizen's sacrosanct right to keep and bear arms, as such right is antecedent to their formation of government and expressly reserved.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

States' rights died in the Civil War. Individual rights died with the national Income Tax. The Federal government can do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases. Need an example? Obamacare. Need an example of fundamental policy-making by unelected officials? The Federal Reserve. Need an example of when concern over states' rights and individual rights have influenced the national policies of Democrat and Republican leaders? Yeah, I do too.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You do understand, that in 1791 a separate federal "district" was suspended over each State to give the Congress jurisdiction through and under which to lay and collect the 'Whiskey Tax'. By the Separation of Powers construction of the Constitutions, that leaves the States' original, ordinary jurisdictions completely undiminished. Even though, by the late 1970s, the State legislatures removed their official operations under those district jurisdictions, effectively vacating those of their States ... they couldn't destroy them without simultaneously destroying the authorities legitimizing their (now colorable) offices.

The ONLY way that State power can 'die' is to formally renounce their Constitutions, which simultaneously dissolves the entire structure of State governance, lock, stock and barrel.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I will be happy to let you keep and bear any arms created in 1776. You can have a brand new 1776 model musket anytime. You want an extended powder sack, sure no problem. Times have changed and so should our laws.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

OK. I agree guns don't kill people, people do, but with guns, too efficiently and effectively. Evil kills. The unbalanced may also. But not on their own, without effective gun control and with a mindless pro-gun culture, murder results. Yet,I believe I see the opening of an important and consequential discussion. Perhaps it is not just another murderous day. http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2012/12/another-day-another-gun-massacre/

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

There can be a gun culture that is thoughtful. But one that opposing all controls no matter what contributes to a general culture of violence. I don't see why this is leftist, nor cant. I am presented the position of many moderates on the issue and for that matter of most law enforcement officials.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I can’t understand why anyone is comfortable with giving government a monopoly on violence. If the people can’t be trusted with arms then why are the people in government any different? Obama’s drone strikes kill thousands of incent men women and children in the most cowardly of ways, yet there is no public outcry. But when a mentally ill man kills innocent people we are asked to disarm ourselves. Do you really want an evil regime unchecked by the second amendment? Have we become so weak that we will trade what little liberty we have left for the chains of tyranny in exchange for an illusory security? It is so sad to see a once proud people cowering in fear behind the skirts of the nanny state. We have innumerable problems in this country but none of them will be solved by granting total power to the institution most responsible for them.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

That's a good question. Governments with unarmed populaces aways become tyrannies. Some are of the soft kind like Europe and the United States but they will morph into the full blown type when all of the money they are stealing from productive citizens runs out. The other side of the coin is when armed warlords rule because there is no central government to stop them. The best situation is when common people possess the power to stop either one. That was the idea the founders had. However, economics usually prevents the common man from owning any of the big stuff. Few citizens have the money to buy a 105mm Howitzer, let alone feed one. Makes it kind of hard to compete with government unencumbered by the rule of law.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Those that say you can't change this issue are wrong. 1980 MADD was formed after society got fed up with the carnage on public roads. Granted, there is still a problem, but the death rate from drunk driving has been nearly halved, and thousands upon thousands of lives have been saved, without banning cars or alcohol.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I live in Maryland. For the 50 years I've been alive marijuana, coccaine, etc. have been illegal. Those and whatever other drugs people who use them want to get their hands on are still readily available. Banning firearms of any sort will do nothing to stop anyone who so desires from acquiring a them. Strengthen laws regarding the safe keeping and storage of firearms, make the penalties for failure to do so harsh, and mandate anyone owning automatic or semi-automatic weapons be subject to a psychological screening annually.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Why is this discussion about guns and not about mental illness? We provide better care for criminals than we do for the mentally ill. Budgets for mental health treatment have been pared to practically nothing and coverage under most insurance is severely limited. Attempts to ban large capacity magazines are political grandstanding. It's easy to champion meaningless legislation that doesn't cost anything.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Because the Left believes it should never let a tragedy go to waste. This one can be used to further the goal of disarming the peasants. The Gun Control Ghouls are going top feast on the mourning to try and get what they want. Actually defining the problem and trying to identify a solution is, for them, a pointless distraction.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

seems again that since none of the parties at odds in this issue will give an inch we will keep our guns, and keep our crazies, and the twain shall meet at the schools: everybody will have their way. the schools will be designated as free fire zones...a sorta pre-K/K O-K CORRALS and the vast majority of school kids will not die of Gunshot, but will live to carry on this debate, and so on....on.....on

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Extravagant media coverage has a more direct responsibility for mass slaughters like this one than gun ownership. Politicians who capitalize on tragedies like this to make policy are more responsible for the tragedies than gun owners. If we're serious about controlling these atrocities let's work with the realities, not political agendas. Let's not give up what little freedoms we have remaining to gain nothing of value.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The reason these mass attacks occur is because the killer wants to commit suicide. If you read the notes they leave or their diaries, if you watch their videos, you'll find that -- time after time -- they want to kill themselves in a way that will make people notice them. In their sick minds, they want to go out in a blaze of violence that will have people pay attention to them.

In these mass attacks, 75 percent of the time the killers die at the scene; the other 25 percent they planned on dying, but they couldn't bring themselves to finish the act of suicide.

• These people want to get media attention. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they'll get. So they target the places where they can kill as many people as possible. And they're planning these things months and months in advance.

The media should embargo the name of the killer in these cases for some significant duration. This would stop many (if not most) mass killings, based upon Lott's research.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

As I said, alcohol was not banned, but CONTROLLED better in the last 30 years, and society is much more safe. Nobody's "freedoms" were lost. Maybe the weak straw-man arguments need to be looked at, and EVERYONE needs to think harder.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am a gun enthusiast and do not see a need for high capacity magazines. I believe a disaster like this can not be avoided but do believe that if the shooter had not had a high cap magazines, more people would have survived. I do believe all 50 states should follow the same laws on gun sales. Background checks, a waiting period, state residents only sales, mandatory safety courses. Maybe by limiting availability we can raise the price of illegal guns thus making it harder on bad guys to buy them. A fact is the bad guys will always have guns and mentally unstable folks too. No matter how many laws we pass.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

imagine all these so called Assault Weapons with a fix 5 round magazine. Imagine all semiaouto handguns with 6 of 8 rounds. There is no need to have magazines with greater capacity.Of course you would have a black market then and they would be in the hands of law breakers.You ban Assault Weapons and you in turn create a black market also.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Given your comment, I find your 'gun enthusiast' self-designation a likely falsehood. Otherwise you would know that all states have mandatory background checks, resident only sales and questions regarding mental status and criminal record.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Hell so what is all the fuss about. We got background checks covered, waiting periods covered, sale to state residents-only covered. Then only thing left is outlaw high cap magazines? Of course I am not sold on the idea of just writing "no" on a form to a question of mentall illness. That one needs work.